|
MDMA is approaching FDA drug approval process
|
View this Thread in Original format
| R!CH |
in my latest issue of economist, there's an article about mdma's progress in getting a fair shake at an fda drug approval process. the phase 1 safety study came back positive for efficacy of mdma in treating post traumatic stress disorder--from people ranging from rape victims to war veterans. researchers said "we do not have failures". next the drug will go to a larger phase 2 study. if it passes that, which it probably will, it goes to phase 3 research. the advantage mdma has over pharmaceuticals like zoloft etc which costs about a billion dollars to get approved is that much of the research has been done and proven through underground psychiatry and thousands of published research papers making the approval process for it a mere 10 million. soon it may be reclassified as schedule 2, which would have major implications on our national health care burden considering how cheap it is to make, how quickly it results in mental health progress, and the estimated 216,000 war veterans returning from iraq and afghanistan who suffer from the disorder and do not respond well to current ptsd treatments.
full story: http://www.economist.com/science/di...ory_id=12792611 |
|
|
| skizzell |
| the progress in the last couple of years has been tremendous. once it passes phase 2, it should be on the road to success. |
|
|
| djjoshuaallen |
| maybe then we will get some good going around in the clubs:D |
|
|
| epic007 |
| I wonder if this will cancel out the red flag in drug testing? Would be nice to have some beans without the fear of a random...lol! |
|
|
| gehzumteufel |
| quote: | Originally posted by epic007
I wonder if this will cancel out the red flag in drug testing? Would be nice to have some beans without the fear of a random...lol! |
Well it would still be illegal to consume without a prescription, but it would not be one they could test for as a strictly illicit substance. |
|
|
| Electrophile |
| quote: | Originally posted by gehzumteufel
Well it would still be illegal to consume without a prescription, but it would not be one they could test for as a strictly illicit substance. |
You will always test positive for amphetamine derivatives because of the metabolites of 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine, big emphasis on METHAMPHETAMINE. The only way to differentiate between metabolites is to go further into mass spec. and NMR with the latter requiring a multi-million dollar machine with an incredibly powerful magnet. All law enforcement field test kits and medical test kits simply test for the presence of a secondary amine.
This chart is an excellent reference to the metabolic path of MDMA.
 |
|
|
| gehzumteufel |
| Okay Ruben, I understood most of that, but I want to make sure I am clear. They basically test for the part that is common in ALL methamphetamines, so in theory they could pop you no matter what? |
|
|
| Electrophile |
| quote: | Originally posted by gehzumteufel
Okay Ruben, I understood most of that, but I want to make sure I am clear. They basically test for the part that is common in ALL methamphetamines, so in theory they could pop you no matter what? |
Yes, you will get busted no matter what. Urine tests do not test for 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA), rather they test for metabolites of methamphetamines. In other words, they are looking for the drug after your body has processed it a bit.
You can equate the drug test to a true or false question. The test is asking "Is there a trace of methamphetamine?". The solution either changes color or it does not. There is no way to differentiate between drugs. To differentiate between molecules you would have to run a mass spec, an IR spec, a NMR and a proton NMR. Only very large labs and universities can afford such equipment, and you need a very skilled eye to interpret NMR and proton NMR.
This is what they are testing for. Note the R-NH(2)-CH3 common in all of the molecules.
 |
|
|
| epic007 |
So is it true that Sudafed can show up as a positive... ooopps, you said meth... never mind.
:crazy: |
|
|
| gehzumteufel |
| quote: | Originally posted by Electrophile
Yes, you will get busted no matter what. Urine tests do not test for 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA), rather they test for metabolites of methamphetamines. In other words, they are looking for the drug after your body has processed it a bit.
You can equate the drug test to a true or false question. The test is asking "Is there a trace of methamphetamine?". The solution either changes color or it does not. There is no way to differentiate between drugs. To differentiate between molecules you would have to run a mass spec, an IR spec, a NMR and a proton NMR. Only very large labs and universities can afford such equipment, and you need a very skilled eye to interpret NMR and proton NMR.
This is what they are testing for. Note the R-NH(2)-CH3 common in all of the molecules.
|
That is pretty much what I assumed. A GC/MS can't tell the difference? Or will that only work with the original specimen before ingestion?
| quote: | Originally posted by epic007
So is it true that Sudafed can show up as a positive... ooopps, you said meth... never mind.
:crazy: |
Sudafed is pseudoephedrine. Not |
|
|
| Electrophile |
| quote: | Originally posted by gehzumteufel
That is pretty much what I assumed. A GC/MS can't tell the difference? Or will that only work with the original specimen before ingestion?
Sudafed is pseudoephedrine. Not |
By GC/MS you mean gas chromatography, mass spec right? GC will only separate phases in a compound and does nothing to identify what is in the mobile phase. MS is used to find the mass of the molecule and the methyls, ethyls, propyls etc. You can also use MS to identify Br and Cl in a molecule easily. MS is a destructive technique that breaks the molecule into pieces and analyzes those broken up pieces and gives a mass but doesn't give functional groups, carbons or hydrogen relationships.
So to answer your question, GC/MS is too coarse of a test to differentiate between someone who has ingested a legal amphetamine vs. an illegal amphetamine simply because they all have a common 2-phenylethylamine skeleton pictured below.
 |
|
|
| gehzumteufel |
| quote: | Originally posted by Electrophile
By GC/MS you mean gas chromatography, mass spec right? GC will only separate phases in a compound and does nothing to identify what is in the mobile phase. MS is used to find the mass of the molecule and the methyls, ethyls, propyls etc. You can also use MS to identify Br and Cl in a molecule easily. MS is a destructive technique that breaks the molecule into pieces and analyzes those broken up pieces and gives a mass but doesn't give functional groups, carbons or hydrogen relationships.
So to answer your question, GC/MS is too coarse of a test to differentiate between someone who has ingested a legal amphetamine vs. an illegal amphetamine simply because they all have a common 2-phenylethylamine skeleton pictured below.
|
(img hotlink fail :p)
Ahh ok that makes sense. :) and yes the GC/MS you got correct...is there something else that goes by that?
edit//damnit you caught your fail! :p |
|
|
|
|
